Free will(not to derail another post)

I am very well educated not only only PB's beliefs, but Reformed, Armenians, and many others.

It is obvious the term 'born saved' is the issue here as it seems you do not understand my usage of it.
and why I state PB's Hold this view in the main. Maybe I should clarify 'specifically'.. in that PB's do not explicitly state or say.. we are born saved.. it is their theology which says such.

But I will try it this way with a primary question, and two subsequent questions:

2. When were God's children actually redeemed?
Note I did not say believers because PB's do not believe all God's children are believers of or in Christ or even will be this side of heaven. In fact many state there are/will be more non-believers (from earths stand point) in heaven than believers.

Was it at the regeneration, making the application of Christ's atonement/redemption something that happens at different times for different people?

OR

Was God's children redeemed on the Cross, when Christ said it is finished?


Redemption or 'to redeem' - In theology it means to, rescue and deliver from the bondage of sin and the penalties of God's violated law, by obedience and suffering in the place of the sinner...


If, as the PB's typically do, hold that Christ redeemed (pasted tense) all the Children of God (the elect), at Christ's death.. Then according to the definition of redemption the elect are 'born' saved.

Again from the same website earlier:
Particular Redemption: Christ’s redeeming work was performed and accomplished for a specific group, those elected before the creation of the universe, and not for mankind in general. Each for whom Christ died stand redeemed.
The Effectual Call: All those who were elected and redeemed will, during their lives, be “called” by God. This “calling” is also referred to as a “new birth,” “quickening,” or “regeneration” and is descriptive of the instant in a person’s life when he or she receives the gift of eternal life.

Thus my statement, as I have stated previously above, is not how they specifically state it, but their statement is the same in that that all God's elect (whether believers or not) have already been redeemed by Christ in the past, with no temporal application of it to men. The 'temporal' aspect is assigned to the regeneration, not redemption. Thus if redeemed, saved already.

The wording from PB's is almost with out fail the same.. they (the elect) ARE redeemed .. but those elect in Christ WILL BE effectually called ..ect.

 

The conclusion does not follow from your reasoning. You would need to demonstrate that "redeemed" is equivalent to "saved" in the sense that PBs use the terms. I am not saying you are wrong, merely that your post doesn't demonstrate this conclusion. That is, a PB could agree with everything else in your post but still disagree with this conclusion.

If they have an essentially different definition for "saved" then your conclusion would be fallacious. It is unsound to insist on your own definitions when analyzing a position which may have a different definition.

 

True.. and thus the issue is in biblically defining the word.

Redemption or to be redeemed in the PB sense is that Christ purchased us but exclude much of what that purchasing biblically entails.

 

No.. their definition of eternally saved is where I am drawing the reference from, not their various views of different types of it's usage.

To be eternally saved, even for them, entails the removal of sin.

 

Yep. But that statement is not logically equivalent to the assertion that "God only chastens those he loves." One can logically conclude from what the verse says that God does not love everyone, and that if one is not chastened then one is not a son, but one cannot logically conclude that God only chastens those He loves. The passage does not say this, nor can it be inferred from what the passage says.

 

True. However, I am not yet convinced of this. Not saying you wrong in your assumed definition, merely that I have not yet seen it demonstrated.

 

I am a PB and I am a lot more qualified to speak as to what PBs believe.

The bible speaks of redemption as a finished work. This does not mean all the elect are regenerated and saved to heaven right now. Paul wasn't saved and regenerated before Acts 9 even though the work of redemption was completed at the cross signified by Jesus Christ sitting down at the right hand of God the Father.

Do you deny that the bible says Jesus finished the work of redemption at the cross? I hope you don't.

Here's what the bible says about the work of redemption: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."

That doesn't mean I was conceived already saved to heaven. Paul says we are children of wrath even as others before regeneration.

Your problem is you have no concept of what the PBs mean by temporal salvation. We mean that the bible speaks of some aspects of being saved that do not mean saved to heaven. Regeneration is not temporal salvation according to PB beliefs. Let me restate that since you totally refuse to acknowledge it - regeneration is not temporal salvation. Regeneration is the Holy Spirit of God applying the blood of Jesus Christ to a child of God, quickening that individual, and bringing them into a vital relationship with the Son of God. It is absolutely eternal salvation, being saved to heaven. I shouldn't have to explain this to one who claims to be so well versed in PB beliefs.

The PBs do not believe one is born saved. We believe Jesus finished the work of redemption at the cross and the Holy Spirit of God is even now at work applying this work to God's children.

I could take some of your beliefs and put together a phony bit of reasoning and conclude things you obviously don't believe, afterwards applying them to you and then saying, "even if he rejects them, this is what he believes." I could do that, but that is unethical and deceptive. Surely we can have a discussion without presenting straw man arguments. I won't try to paint you in a manner which is clearly inconsistent with your beliefs and I'd appreciate the same courtesy. Quit acting like a PB expert. You really have no idea what we believe.

 

That their definition of saved involves the removal of sin does not mean that it is equivalent to it. Something can be a necessary condition w/o being a sufficient condition. So the question is whether or not they view redemption as a sufficient condition of salvation. If not, then they have a different definition of 'saved' than you are using.

 

I would love to hear what you think the bible means by redemption.

 

What do you mean by the removal of sin?

 

Let me make this statement: I don't pretend to be an expert on other denominations. I try to educate myself on what others believe, but I don't claim to be an expert. What aggravates me about this thread is someone who isn't a Primitive Baptist arguing with me, a lifelong PB, about what PBs believe. In the nicest way I can say it, stop! You don't have a good understanding of our beliefs. That is clear. I do. I can tell you what we believe and we don't believe what you are saying. Quit acting like an expert when you aren't. You are presenting us in a false light and I will not let that stand.